Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:34:06 08/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 23, 2004 at 08:18:25, Peter Berger wrote: >On August 23, 2004 at 06:47:34, Matthias Gemuh wrote: > >>On August 23, 2004 at 04:43:57, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >> >>>After the rumours here in CCC about El Chinito being >>>a Crafty clone, we are wondering whether we should >>>replace El Chinito 3.25 by Delfi 4.5. What's your >>>opinion on that? [http://www.utzingerk.com/at_2004.htm] >>>Kurt >> >> >> >>Hi Kurt, >>I am disappointed that you don't differentiate between perfect proofs >>and rumours. That discredits the wonderful work of Paul H. in this case. >>Best, >>Matthias. > >That's not reasonable, Matthias. For an ordinary user of chessprograms a >baseless accuse and a perfect proof will look very similar, if presented in a >similar way. For example a non-programmer might be able to judge whether a >conclusion supports the accuse of cloning, but not if the conclusion itself is >correct. Just think of a perfect proof in Suaheli :) You have it all wrong as usual. Here in CCC the decision is NOT between a correct conclusion or a baseless accusation. The analysis by Paul H was widely accepted as especially sophisticated and it was also accepted as correct. Proof: if not many here would have written against. Now we have one or two, in special Frank Quisinsky, who became horrified by the terrible verdict for his partners. It is well understandable the Frank wants to hear from Eugenio before he acts. But this is a private thing and has nothing to do with the already given verdict. That verdict is also in no way depending on what Eugenio had to say because the analysis by Paul is absolutely smashing. So, what you here basically miss is this: in an expert environment something has been proven and we have one or two who can't believe it, also because they don't understand what Paul had discovered. But that is the problem of these one or two. It's ridiculous to think that the brilliant case Paul has presented could in any thinkable detail still depend on what could be said by Eugenio or Frank himself. That could only be confused by people who have no academic education. You know the class of the proof is NOT open to democratic elections or beliefs. It's either a proof or not. And that _is_ a proof as far as I could understand. A last aspect. Frank Q. does it always in that same wrong way. He thinks that if he comes here into CCC that then he can't be held responsible in case something is wrong with one of his partner products. Because here he had asked and people should have told him. But in real Frank should have done all that long before - his team is big enough! - and Thomas M, for instance knew it also since Graz. But until now it was just an add on the webpage. If however Frank planned to make a new bundle to sell it, then a prog like ElChinito could cause trouble for him. Will he learn this? But the insulting "witchhunt" against Paul was unwanted here, to come to the end of this message. > >Peter > >Peter
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.